User talk:Truthprofessor

Welcome!

Hello, Truthprofessor, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Just H 17:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ilan Pappé

I'm afraid that your extensive edits introduced numerous formatting errors and infelicities (for example, you changed properly formatted references to anonymous in-text links). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any errors or infelicities; I didn't think the references were formatted very well, but if you disagree, by all means change the in-text links back to references. Truthprofessor 14:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I suppose that you wouldn't, or you wouldn't have made them in the first place. Part of the problem is that you haven't taken the time to familiarise yourself with Wikipedia policies and guidelines; it's not a free for all here, I'm afraid.

Take the lead: "He is considered one of the Israeli New Historians who are strongly critical of the history of Zionism." Not only did you remove the {{fact}} template (without supplying a citation), but the original was more neutrally expressed; you've gone from "who have re-examined the history of Israel and Zionism" to "who are strongly critical of the history of Zionism", without explanation or citation.

Being "on the list of Hadash, Israel's Communist Party" is obscure, where "on the Hadash list" isn't (the latter is a standard English locution for being on a list of candidates, while your version simply states that he's on some list...).

You changed the neutral: "He was involved in a controversy over an M.A. thesis by Teddy Katz about an alleged massacre in 1948 in the Palestinian village of Tantura." to the much less neutral "Ilan Pappé publicly supported an M.A. thesis by Teddy Katz alleging that Israeli troops committed a massacre in 1948 in the Palestinian village of Tantura. In December 2000, as defendant in a libel case, Katz retracted his allegations about the massacre, but then he retracted his retraction." In fact that whole paragraph goes on to become even more negative about him, with no indication that there's an alternative view.

The same problems occur in the rest of your edits; they're not making the article more but less NPoV, as well as degrading the quality of presentation. Please stop reverting. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In reply:

1. That Ilan Pappé is one of the New Historians is Israel/Palestine 101! It no more requires a citation than the statement that Edward Said was a Palestinian-American professor. Same with the "strongly critical" clause: that's the whole point of the New Historians, that they are critics of the traditional Zionist narrative! These are hardly debatable statements.

2. How about "on the candidate list of Hadash, Israel's Communist Party"? That would satisfy the concern you express, although it wouldn't satisfy those (and I'm sure you're not one of them) who don't want to mention that Pappé was a candidate for Israel's Communist Party.

3. The original Tantura sentence was not so much neutral as vacuous. As for my replacement - is it untrue? Did Pappé not publicly support the Katz thesis? Did Katz not retract his massacre claim and then retract the retraction? These are simply facts. What's the "alternative view" - that Pappé publicly opposed Katz, that Katz wasn't sued for libel, that he didn't retract his retraction, that an ex-PA minister didn't pay his fees, that his thesis wasn't disqualified for alleged research fraud?

4. But my only other edits consisted of giving equal weight to critics and supporters, and tidying up the links. Previously this entry contained two critics (with Pappé's replies) and a dozen dust jacket blurbs. NPOV? Truthprofessor 02:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read and understand our policy on giving sources. It is not enough to say "anyone who knows anything about this subject would know this, so I don't have to give a citation." The article will be read (and, indeed, edited) by people who don't know the subject. Indeed, that's the point of an encyclopædia. To say to the reader: "I'll not tell you this, because you ought to know it already, you ignoramus." isn't good style.
As Hadash is linked, it doesn't seem to me to be essential to explain it, though it's not a problem. Your comment betrays your partisanship, though, which is significant. I'm not editing here from a partisan position (I'd never heard of him before I came across this article, and am not desperately interested in him); I'm approaching this disinterestedly and dispassionately. Your passion and partisanship do, however, lead me to view your edits and claims with extra caution.
Again, your understanding of what an article should be doing is faulty, as is your understanding of the role of editors. I'm not here to do research in order to offer a defence of this man; I'm just looking at the article, and seeing a neutral mention of a controversy removed in favour of a very negative account. The citations that you gave either didn't mention Pappé, or didn't meet our standards for sources (we don't accept blogs, message boards, etc.).
The issue of the critics and defences section has been raised, and I'd already done a lot of tidying. My own view is that it should be removed altogether, as it's not in keeping with an encyclopædia article. I think now that I'll be bold and do so now. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Sigh) With the very greatest of respect, is it wise for you to rewrite this page if you know nothing about the subject? (We're all ignorant about certain things, which is why I, for example, don't rewrite entries on phenomenology or molecular biology.) Certainly your objections have no basis in any of the Wikipedia policies you mention, admin status notwithstanding.

1. Take the WP:CITE policy. This states: "All material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source." My description of the New Historians is not in the least controversial (and their admirers wouldn't consider it in any way pejorative), as is obvious from the New Historians entry to which that sentence linked.

2. If the CP reference isn't a problem (and it's plainly true) then why do you keep removing it? Is it "passion and partisanship" to mention an undisputed fact? Is it "passion and partisanship" to object when you delete that undisputed fact (when I took care to stress that I do not suspect your motives for doing so)?

3. Originally you hinted that the "errors and infelicities" in my edits included failing to offer an "alternative view" of the Tantura affair. Since I had offered a list of facts (with citations), I asked you to explain what "alternative view" you had in mind. Now you admit that you don't know anything about the article you're rewriting yet complain that I offer a "very negative" account. But I didn't offer my POV. I offered a list of facts (with one negative comment from a historian, which I'm moving to the Criticism section). Either the factual claims are true and complete, in which case they should be left undisturbed, or they are are untrue, in which case they should be corrected, or they are true but incomplete, in which case editors who know something about the subject can augment them.

As for my Tantura citations, you say that these "either didn't mention Pappé, or didn't meet our standards for sources (we don't accept blogs, message boards, etc.)." I gave four citations. All but one mention Pappé. None are blogs. The first two are relevant reports from a major Israeli newspaper. The third is a page providing every single relevant newspaper report, journal article, legal document, etc. The fourth is a relevant public statement by a prominent Israeli historian who was a participant in the affair (to repeat: I'm moving this to the Criticism section).

4. Originally you worried that by giving equal attention to critics and supporters I was violating WP:NPOV. Apparently you've reconsidered: now you're worried that discussion of critics/supporters isn't in keeping with an encyclopaedia entry. Scores, if not hundreds, of Wikipedia BLPs mention the relevant controversies. I agree that these sections shouldn't be limited to quotations. Extra content would be welcome. Hopefully editors who know something about the subject will add it.

As before, I'm adding this to the main entry's discussion page so that all editors can see the issues in dispute between us, and comment if they wish.

Truthprofessor 21:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please request protection for th eweb page on Steven Plaut, which is being vandalized by RolandR. You can list me as the second requester. ---Smearzapper

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Truthprofessor for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. RolandR 08:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

It has been established that you engaged in sockpuppetry by evidence presented here:
Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Truthprofessor, and you are therefore blocked for period of 1 week.
You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires.

Unblocked

In response to your email, given the results of this checkuser request which shows at least one suspected sockpuppet to be from a different hemisphere, I'm going to unblock you as it's doubtful these sockpuppets were in fact yours. MastCell ^Talk 15:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Chamish

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to Barry Chamish, you will be blocked from editing. --Hereward77 18:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the vandalism? Truthprofessor 18:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You were deleting text, do it again and you will be blocked. --Hereward77 19:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted fragments of a couple sentences. Deleting incorrect or POV text is not vandalism. Try reading the policy before you start making threats. Truthprofessor 19:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The text was removed without proper explanation or discussion, that is against Wikipedia policy. You have been warned. --Hereward77 19:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I explained each change. See my edit summary. Truthprofessor 19:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calling something "POV" isn't good enough. --Hereward77 19:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that someone is unreliable is clearly POV. Truthprofessor 19:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chamish is a critic of a branch of Zionism, that does not stop him being a Zionist. --Hereward77 19:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He says lots of things against Zionism, what has he said in support of Zionism? Truthprofessor 19:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He is a religious Zionist critic of left-wing Labour Zionism. --Hereward77 19:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What has he said in support of religious Zionism? Truthprofessor 20:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A lot actually, read his articles and listen to his interviews. He is always defending the religious Jews. --Hereward77 20:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Defending religious Jews doesn't make anyone a Zionist. And it's compatible with being strongly anti-Zionist. What has he said in support of Zionism? What Zionist parties or groups does he belong to? Truthprofessor 20:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chamish is a supporter of Zionist leaders such as Menachem Begin and Rabbi Meir Kahane. --Hereward77 22:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence? Truthprofessor 22:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Listen to this broadcast, in which he states that Begin was "one of the good guys": http://www.thebarrychamishwebsite.com/shows/rense06-19-07.mp3

--Hereward77 23:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How far into the broadcast? Truthprofessor 23:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

28 minutes exactly. --Hereward77 23:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - you're right, he did praise Begin there. Does he praise Kahane as well? If so then the entry should say that he is a Kahanist. Truthprofessor 11:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Truthprofessor for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. RolandR (talk) 18:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]